Whether or not SA did it isn't really important. I think it's crystal clear that the police planted evidence, though. Especially on a poker forum, I think anyone who watches the end of episode 5 knows Colburn is guilty of something. I'm not a big "tells" guy at all, but the moment he gets caught knowing what car the license plate is on, you can see it all over his face: "Oh ****, I ****ed up." Go back and watch it if you don't remember because it couldn't possibly be any more clear.

If he didnt do it then his bonfire timing might be one of the most unluckiest things of all time.

Which then makes it weird that he was so readily to admit he had a bonfire if he actually burned her body.

#TeamInnocent

As others have said, they had bonfires all the time. Maybe this is a new trend (due to Adnan Syed), too, but do people who get life without parole continue requesting help from things like The Innocence Project? I guess some probably do, but I would think most guilty people eventually just give up.

I need to sleep and I can't look away. This is ****ing unreal and scary. One thing I'll say is if you're going to kill someone in a smallish town where everyone knows everyone, then you would know the best place to dump that body would be on the Avery property.

Just finished the series.

My feeling is that Avery definitely did it, especially when you consider the evidence that was left out of the documentary. He has multiple issues of sexual violence in his past and while he looks like a genius compared to his nephew, he's still borderline mentally ******ed so it's reasonable to think that he would do what he did and leave so much evidence.

I don't understand why Brendan would tell his mother on the phone that he did it. That's the one thing that makes me thing he did actually have some involvement.

HBO passed on the show a few years back:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/21/ar...smtyp=cur&_r=0


somehow brendan is smarter than wiegert:



full transcript: http://convolutedbrian.com.s3.amazon...Transcript.pdf

Source and/or details?

Len or worse is fairly common. In the main county I practice in (which is the largest in the state by far) the private attorney who handles most of the criminal cases doesn't obtain police reports, doesn't have files for his clients and doesn't do anything but plea them to the sentence recommended by the DA. And we are talking felony cases. He charges like 1/10th what a normal attorney charges though and so of course is insanely popular with the defendants even though they mostly all get screwed. He has been doing this for 20-30 years. Everyone from the bar association to the judges to the defense bar are openly aware of it and there are no consequences. He is widely seen by the judges as doing a service by handling a high volume of the cases where people don't qualify for a public defender but are poor. It is completely sickening.

Binge watched the whole thing, it was fascinating.

The title made me think that they would both be acquitted last episode because of some new evidence, was a little disappointed in the end.

While I do think there was enough reasonable doubt to acquit Steven at least I understood how DNA evidence coupled with pre trial media coverage convinced the jury. Brendon's case on the other hand was absolutely infuriating. His first lawyer is the most punchable human being ever created.

if Steve cleaned her blood so good, how would he let her car in his property? does not make sense to me

Forgot about this. This was before that woman called in the car. Pretty crazy.

Just watched the scene where Colburn knew the make of the car before the girl went missing.

I have no words.

He was charged with sexual assault more than once. The story about him "accidentally" throwing the cat on the fire was him dousing it in gasoline first.

Obviously what the cops did was massively massively wrong but I think the makers of the documentary whitewashed the Avery family a bit too much.

people keep saying if he did "this" so well, how could he have messed up "this" so badly? well, you saw the guy. he could have seen a squirrel in a field and just ran after it and forgotten what he was doing. he definetly isnt a criminal mastermind, which actually helps his case in many ways in my mind.

i do find it incredibly strange that there was no construction of an actual crime scene. i would have a very hard time as a juror convicting a man when the state was incapable of giving a plausible narrative of what occurred with evidence backing up their theory.

Where are people getting this from?

Presumably she goes missing on the 31st.
She's reported missing on the 3rd
Col calls in on the 3rd

Yeah i don't really care about the "wouldn't he have used the crusher?" Type of arguments. What i keep wondering is where the F is the blood, hair, semen anywhere in trailer or garage? Also why were there bone fragments found miles away? Nothing makes sense which in my mind points to someone else killed her somewhere else and both the killer and the police are capitalizing on this easy framing opportunity. Not saying police are working with the killer.

Avery was extremely lucky in how poorly the investigation was handled, Brendan not so much.

Ya. I think my biggest suspicion regarding that is he said the plate like he was reading. The theory is he was just confirming the car plate of the missing person, but usually people would simply ask again what the plate is.

Yeah he is an idiot. They said his IQ was 70 Which leads to the questions of the inconsistencies. How could this moron cover up all of the blood and DNA if she was shot (and stabbed?) in his trailer or garage? And if he could cover up any evidence inside his residence why would he leave easily found evidence laying around just outside?

I think there is a good chance he did it but lots of stuff just doesn't add up. I also think its possible there were multiple frame ups going on. Real murderer drops car on Avery lot and moves bones to pit and barrel. Cops plant key, bullet fragment and blood well after the fact to strengthen case.

This guys stories were interesting concerning the original rape conviction, and other things going on in that area around that time, including possible abuses by those in positions of authority and a suspicious death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je35gOEL5wQ

The other thing i wonder about is why people lied about the things they did.
The 2 guys who only alibi'd each other but then discredited by the bus driver. That just seemed to be glossed over. And her brother lying about deleting vm messages.

Do people who watched this realize that you are only probably getting about 10% of the information relative to this case? Many people seem to be only judging this case on what is presented in the film which is a very carefully crafted work that is telling one particular story.

There is much more information out there that either clears up some questions or cast serious doubts on some of the speculation.

I have to hand it to the filmmakers though. They made a film that really appeals to the conspiracy minded folks knowing that they would go gaga discussing their version of the story.

Saying we are only getting 10% of relevant information i think is a severe exaggeration.
Regardless of Avery's actual guilt or innocence you can't argue that the cops and lawyers did nothing wrong. It is still clear they are scum.

The doc could've definitely shown the darker sides of Avery like his cat doused in gasoline burning, torture chamber, molester, etc. But the point was to being light to the corruption that took place on part if the authorities and how no one was ever held accountable.
The smugness of them, "how do you dare accuse the infallible police?!" You do so at your peril....that is the part i found really infuriating.

It was a six week trial.

Having actually sat on a jury for a newsworthy criminal case that lasted three weeks plus jury deliberations, I can assure you that you are only getting at best about 10% of the relevant information.

Care to share some of this 90% of RELEVANT information we are left without?


I would say we likely still had a less biased view than the people in that town had at the time this was all going on.